WRONGLY LABELLED.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12454, 21 September 1933, Page 2

WRONGLY LABELLED.

HOTELKEEPER FINED £2O. A charge of using’ a whisky bottle with its label on, for bottling another brand of whisky for sale, was brought against the licensee of the Clarendon Hotel, James Biggins (Mr John Humphries) in the Napier Magistrate’s Court. The defendant pleaded guilty, and after hearing the facts the Magistrate (Mr A. M. Mowdem) entered Si conviction and imposed the minimum fine under the Act—namely, £2o—with costs £4 Is 6d.

Mr. H. B. Lusk, who appeared on behalf of the medical officer of health, pointed out that the offence was considered a very serious one. Section 210 of the Licensing Act provided a minimum penalty of £2O and a maximum penalty of £2OO.

Mr Grant, health inspector for Napier, obtained from the defendant a whisky bottle half full of whisky. He sent a sample of it to tlie analyst and the whisky was discovered to be another brand altogether to that indicated by the label on the bottle.

Mr Humphries, for tlie defence, said his instructions were that the present case was not one where deceit had been practiced. Biggins liad received a notification from the Health Department that s. samp7e had been taken of the whisky in the bottle. Biggins saw counsel on the matter and told him that he had supervised a booth at the Woodville races on May 27 last, and some of the unused whisky must have been put into the pottle concerning which the charge had been laid.

“This is not a case of ‘watering the milk’,” stated Mr Humphries, “but merely one of not taking the label off the bottle after putting whisky into it. I suggest that £2O is too great a penalty and I would ask your Worship to co-operate with us in making representations to the Minister of Justice to reduce the fine.”

After the defendant had given evidence in corroboration of his counsel’s submissions, Mr Humphries stated that Biggins had always conducted his hotel well. The charge was a most unusual one and, as far as Mr Humphries * knew*, it was the first of its kind m Napier. He added that he proposed to write to the Minister of. Justice to reduce the penalty, and he asked again for "the Magistrate's co-operation. 1 his was given by Air Mowlem who stated that, had the penalty not been defined by law, he would have imposed a less heavy fine.